Morales just made himself the "New Hitler"

Oh dear. In a courageous move, Evo Morales has decided that "foreign energy firms should not expect compensation for assets that are now under state
control."

This doesn't mean their assets will be expropriated, but that they won't get compensation for loss of earnings following a renegotiation of
contracts with the government, according to this report.

How long can it be before the propaganda machine cranks up and awards him the ultimate accolade - "new Hitler" status? The US is already preparing
for some sort of action against Venezuela, and now this... factor in Iraq and Iran and it's going to be a busy, busy last couple of years for the
Bush administration.

God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning. Hitler was the second most brutal
dictator in the history of mankind, only surpassed by Stalin in sheer numbers of their victims. I can see how the term, the "New Castro," may apply
here, but not a label of the "New Hitler."

The secretary acknowledged that "we've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo
Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally - just as Adolf Hitler
was elected legally - and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."

russia and china are out of the question for dominating the world via war. but in the end, what would one have to do to beat them?
with the world on the verge of discovering cheap, nearly non-pollutable, and nearly endless supply of fuel... how would u win the war?

take the oil.

all i'm saying is, 100 years before the atom bomb, we rode horses. imagine what is coming in the years after the atom bomb.

WW3 will be violent, as predicted.
but as all people know, the only in the aftermath will we realize our mistakes.

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr
all i'm saying is, 100 years before the atom bomb, we rode horses.

Hmmh. A funny observation, but not entirely correct. Of course we rode horses, but we stil ride horses today. But today like then this is not our most
advanced means of transportation. 100 years ago those were trains.

But change the number in your post to 200 and you have me on your page!

But more on the topic, I don`t think that Morales is in a great danger of becoming another Boogeyman to the West. I`ve read some articles of leftist
authors and they view him as a kittycat compared to Chavez so I guess he should be safe.

Originally posted by sardion2000
God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning. Hitler was the second most brutal
dictator in the history of mankind, only surpassed by Stalin in sheer numbers of their victims. I can see how the term, the "New Castro," may apply
here, but not a label of the "New Hitler."

Stalin was the worst?

Guess you never heard about Mao.

I thought some Jewish guys said Louis Farrahkan was the new Hitler...ok, it was black Hitler, but it's about the
same.

Originally posted by sardion2000
God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning. Hitler was the second most brutal
dictator in the history of mankind, only surpassed by Stalin in sheer numbers of their victims. I can see how the term, the "New Castro," may apply
here, but not a label of the "New Hitler."

Stalin was the worst?

Guess you never heard about Mao.

I thought some Jewish guys said Louis Farrahkan was the new Hitler...ok, it was black Hitler, but it's about the
same.

Don't know much about Mao and havn't seen enough evidence(nor the time nor inclination actually), okay how about worst in European History then?

Originally posted by AJAG
Just like we learned after WW1 and WW2? Third time lucky?

very good point. we learn, things are ok for a few years, and then people start forgetting about how horrible war is. so they send the next
generation to battle in order to secure the peace. then things are good for awhile and the cycle continues.

but dont start at ww1. if you go back to the beginning of recorded history, you will find that almost every civilization has had at least one major
war during each generation. young men want to prove themselves and old men forget the horrors of war. its in the human genome. i just dont see any
end in sight (short of the extinction of the human race).

Originally posted by AJAG
Just like we learned after WW1 and WW2? Third time lucky?

very good point. we learn, things are ok for a few years, and then people start forgetting about how horrible war is. so they send the next
generation to battle in order to secure the peace. then things are good for awhile and the cycle continues.

but dont start at ww1. if you go back to the beginning of recorded history, you will find that almost every civilization has had at least one major
war during each generation. young men want to prove themselves and old men forget the horrors of war. its in the human genome. i just dont see any
end in sight (short of the extinction of the human race).

Oh yeah, completely agree, just started at WW1 just because I found it funny about learning from WW3 and wanted to be ironic about it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.